Wednesday, July 19, 2017

No Surprise, Dayton Loses: The Legal and Political Implications

It should come as no surprise that a Ramsey County judge ruled that Governor Dayton’s line item veto of funding for the state legislature violated the Minnesota Constitution. But with that decision, the respective powers of the three branches of government are reshuffled, leaving the governor in a far weaker position than it was before, both in the short and long term.Dayton’s line-item veto was at best ill-advised, at worst a foolish political gambit with enormous political and legal implications. Dayton’s use of the veto demonstrated how the legislature had politically outmaneuvered him once again. Not willing to take the chance of another government shutdown, Dayton refused to use his veto on several of the omnibus bills, thereby throwing away his most potent weapon to force the Republicans to do what he wanted. Dayton blinked, signed the bills, and then used the line-item veto to try to force the legislature to do what he wanted, as evidenced by the memo he sent to them describing why he did what he did. This memo would come to haunt him in the final court decision.During oral arguments it was clear that the governor’s attorney was on weak ground. As I tell my law students, never make a legal argument asserting that you have unlimited discretion to act. That was essentially the governor’ position–there was no limit on the power of the governor to use the line-item veto. Unbridled discretion is never a good argument.No surprise then in the ruling by the judge. Minnesota case law was clear that one branch or part of the government could not take action that would impede or prevent another constitutionally created branch of the government from performing its constitutional functions. Second, in the original court hearing and its preliminary decision a few weeks ago the judge strongly hinted that the governor would lose. Thus, from a legal perspective this opinion is not a shock or surprise.Longer term, the implications here are interesting. Between this decision and the Brayton v. Pawlenty decision from a few years ago when the Court ruled against the governor’s use of his unallotment authority to balance the budget and end the legislative session, decision a few years ago, the power of the Minnesota governor vis-a-vis the legislature is now weaker. In both cases the governor overplayed his hand and now the courts have placed limits on what the governor can do on his own. In both cases governor’s acted impulsively, in both cases they were ruled against. The two cases limit the constitutional powers of the governor.At the same time, both of the cases strengthen both the legislature and the courts. In the case of the legislature, it is stronger s a result of the governor’s constitutional wings being clipped and because it emboldens them to act and take more chances in the future. The judiciary is stronger because it yet again became the final arbiter of who has power and how Minnesota government works. Not only does this decision reinforce the notion that the Minnesota Courts get the final say on what the state constitution means, but with this decision they got to decide how to allocate political power in Minnesota. This decision redrew the lines of separation of powers in Minnesota.Short term, Dayton now is even weaker going into his last year than he was before, and Daudt even stronger, thereby enhancing his status as a gubernatorial candidate. The decision has huge implications for the 2018 governor’s race. Notice how Attorney General Swanson stayed out of this case–she was smart politically not to defend the governor in a case she must have known he would lose. Finally, notice how the DFL Legislature sold out the governor. Dayton’s use of the line-item veto was also a result of the Republicans’ flagrant violation of the single-subject clause in the State Constitution. Dayton could not argue that point in his defense because he signed the bills he objected to. However, if the Democrats had raised a single-subject objection to the bills in a separate case, it would have been possible for court to join the line-item and single-subject arguments together. Historically, the two clauses have common histories in terms of their goal in policing legislative corruption and abuses. Yet while John Marty tried to get support for this challenge, his DFL colleagues failed to support him, demonstrating how much the political and legal interests of them and Dayton had departed. What will be interesting to see is the political fallout of this failure to support the governor, both in the remainder of Dayton’s term and in how it plays out for the 2018 legislative and gubernatorial elections.

Hello Everybody,My name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in Singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of S$250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of S$250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:{urgentloan22@gmail.com} Thank you.

Hello Everybody,My name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in Singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of S$250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of S$250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:{urgentloan22@gmail.com} Thank you.

Election Law and Democratic Theory

My latest book from Palgrave

Subscribe to the "Take"

ShareThis

About Me

Professor in the political science department at Hamline University where he teaches classes in American politics, public policy and administration, and ethics.
Schultz holds an appointment at the University of Minnesota law school and teaches election law, state constitutional law, and professional responsibility.
He has authored/edited 30 books, 12 legal treatises, and more than 100 articles on topics including civil service reform, election law, eminent domain, constitutional law, public policy, legal and political theory, and the media and politics.
In addition to 25+ years teaching, he has worked in government as a director of code enforcement and for a community action agency as an economic and housing planner.